Other situations-I will just give one more example. Of course, t problem you have in any "other factors" thing is, it might be not too bad if we had had equal representation, and if the majority had had some chance to be represented on a majority basis in the legislatur during the great turmoil that has taken place in this country during the last 50 or 60 years. But we are coming to this situation now after the industrial revolution, and 50 or 60 years of underrepresentation of the minority, and overrepresentation of the majority. These urin problems have not been solved. These problems that working peor have have not been solved.

Now, if we found ourselves in a situation where all of these problem had not accumulated during the last 50 or 60 years, we might be are then to talk about some balancing. The problem is, when you taš about balancing now, you are talking about continuing the veto. And you are talikng about continuing not to solve the problems which the legislature has not solved for the past 50 or 60 years.

In Illinois, this can be reflected in many ways. And I point sore out in the statement. But just one current example. Illinois has m an average wage, an average factor earning wage of nearly $11 And its average wage is very close to $100. A bill went before the Illinois Legislature a week or two ago it went before the Illinois Serate, it passed the house which is on a one-man, one-vote basis berme of the at-large election-the bill called for a $1.25 minimum wag The senate killed $1.25 minimum wage for the residents of Illines On virtually the same day, they voted themselves a wage increase fro $6,000 to $9,000 a year for working 6 months out of the year. not object to the wage increase. But I wonder how that can be ration alized or reconciled with the fact that we cannot-they refuse to vo $1.25 minmium wage. And this is in a State where the fellow wie makes this $9,000 a year, or $15,000 pays the same tax under a 4 perce sales tax as the poor guy who is making less than $1.25 an hour, the senate, which is on an "other factors" basis, refuses to pass. As matter of fact, there has been speculation on the part of the Ish movement whether to go back and see if we can pass a 50-cent or a **cent minimum wage, and we suspect that we would not. The probler is that we would be disgraced to have it on the books.

Senator BAYH. There is no minimum wage law at all?

Mr. KLEIMAN. There is no minimum wage law at all in Illino And there is a 4 percent sales tax on everything that a destitute perser buys.

Senator BAYI. There is no exemption for food?

Mr. KLEIMAN. There are no exemptions for food. The fact has beer shown that a working person, a person who makes $40 a week, par near as much tax as the fellow who makes $10,000 a year.

There is more in the statement. I think that basically this s marizes the points we wanted to make, and the Illinois experience. I really have heard no suggestions that other States would not hese the same problems, and that the same things would not be encountered And certainly, I see no reason why Illinois will not continue to have the problems if we proceed. I think, principally, that Illinois shows that this referendum situation is not a safeguard. and I think that t shows some of the abuses that can happen under this arrangement.

Senator BAYH. I appreciate very much your comments. I am going to read your testimony with a great deal of interest.

I have enjoyed this chance to participate in this give-and-take discussion here.

Mr. Flynn suggested that it might help the record to have your opinion as to whether in the at-large election last year that the Negroes who ran at large in the house-do you feel that they got equal representation now?

Mr. KLEIMAN. I really do not know how many Negro candidates there were among the at-large candidates, and whether that related to the population. I think that it does. I think both sides carefully slated a substantial number, and probably related that-both parties related that in some way to the population, the relative population of the Negroes in the State. But I am not positive. I would not want to say it was so.

Senator BAYH. My first impression when I thought of the question was that they probably were not. In line with the answer, you gave, realizing that you had slating where it was an apportional representation

Mr. KLEIMAN. Yes, in effect, both sides put up slates.

Senator BAYH. Each party probably took a great deal of care to see that this factor was considered.

Mr. KLEIMAN. Yes.

Senator BAYH. I appreciate your coming here. This, of course, is the last day, and you are the last witness. We saved our star for the cleanup spot.

Mr. KLEIMAN. It has been my pleasure.

Senator BAYH. We have tried to deal with this problem objectively. We have tried to hear both sides extensively, even to the point of being repetitious in some areas. But I would rather be a little bit repetitious than to shortchange either side.

I appreciate your helping us make this record.

Mr. KLEIMAN. I appreciate the opportunity and the special day that you set up for it.

Senator BAYH. I feel that your testimony was an asset to us. This, of course, is what we have been trying to do all along.

I would like to note for the record that we have several statements which have been given to us in lieu of personal testimony. I would like to have them incorporated in the record following the last of the testimony.

We are adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

(The subcommittee received the following statements for the record :)

STATEMENT OF ACTIVE VOTERS ON ANTIREAPPORTION MENT CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT

Active Voters is a bipartisan, biracial organization with offices in Atlanta, but with membership all over the State of Georgia. A number of our members have participated as counsel and as parties in reapportionment litigation including Toombs v. Fortson and the Wesberry cases. We are quite proud of this activity and other efforts to promote good and representative government in Georgia over the last 14 years.

Georgia was one of those States in which both houses of its legislature badly malapportioned. Superimposed by this same legislature was a syen for electing State officials such as the Governor, attorney general, etc., known the "county unit system," which further disfranchised the urban people az! elected at least one Governor who had less than a majority of the votes est The situation was utterly hopeless. The rural areas were in no mood to weigh one of their votes as only one; they were getting financial subsidy from the cit while undertaxing themselves, and they like everyone else enjoyed the premiga tive of power.

Then came the series of Federal court decisions. The county unit system we out and the State senate was reapportioned. A new hope and vigor swept the State. Legislation was proposed to catch up with modern needs. But it de. aborning in the house of representatives which had not been changed. The attitudes are still there and apparently will remain until it too is reapportions_ as is now being done under a court order. We beg the Congress not to go bea to such a system.

The present proposals of Senate Joint Resolutions 2, 38, and 44, more end monly referred to as the Dirksen amendment proposal, are insidious, evil, az vindictive in their origin.

1. The so-called Federal analogy that one house of a legislature should se based on population and one on geography is historically and politically fallacions (a) Historically, until about 1890, in a majority of States representation was substantially based on population in both houses. This was in accord with our traditional and early concepts of democracy.

(b) There is no parallel between a compact of sovereign States-which ba equal representation in the U.S. Senate and cities or counties which exist on t at the will of a State.

2. In the last 80 years, the practicality of power and politics have demet strated that even where required by State law or State constitution-as: Georgia-those who have power cannot be trusted to obey the law and regularit reapportion. A compulsion is necessary and this can practicably come only fr the courts.

3. The proposal contained in the call for amendment or a convention tha* ** people of a State vote on any plan is fraught with hazard.

(a) Such plan could give 99 percent of the seats in one house to a minor.t of the people if approved by a bare 51 percent of those voting.

(b) Practically speaking, whatever plan was adopted could and would never be changed.

4. Of especial note to Members of Congress should be the simple fact that th greatest impetus to this convention call is from malapportioned legislatures inter ested in perpetuating themselves and does not represent the true will of the vot.24 public. The voters will surely remember those who now seek to perpetuate such injustice.

5. The only other force in favor of the convention are those few, but voes people who are angry at the Supreme Court because of one or more of its de sions on school desegregation, civil rights, civil liberties, or compulsory sch prayer. This is a noisy claque but one which should be led and taught, mo pandered to.

6. Truly representative government will be responsive government. If State governments are responsive, the people will not need to call on the Feder Government, which need has been in large measure a reason for the growth of Federal power.

For these and other reasons the members of Active Voters call upon all Con gressmen and Senators to reject these efforts to amend the Constitution or to ca.. a constitutional convention, to limit the power of the courts over reapporti r ment. Good government is our mutual goal. Let us show our traditional faith in democratic-republican government and get back to it.

Mr. LARRY A. CONRAD,

ATLANTA, GA., March 23, 1963

Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. U.S. Senate, Work ington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The Alliance for Social. Economic, and Political Progress, represent ing some 30 organizations and groups including trade unions, ministerial se ciations and civil rights organizations has gone on record as being opposed to the

sen amendment and all other amendments which would allow citizens of es to be unrepresented and underrepresented in State legislatures. nerican citizens in the State of Georgia and particularly in the metropolitan of Atlanta have for years been the subject of abuse by the malapportioned gia Legislature. If the doctrine that "taxation without representation is nny," is still true, then we have been and still are the victims of tyranny. 7 the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming the principle of "one-one-vote," can rectify this situation.

e are gravely concerned with the attempt to overturn the Supreme Court ng and we are vigorously opposed to this move. The right to equal representamust not be tampered with if our Republic is going to remain a democracy. Sincerely,

1. BIRCH BAYH,

JEROME LEVINE, Secretary.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA,

Atlanta, Ga.

irman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, ate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

EAR SENATOR BAYH: As an organization whose members' voices in their ernment have for years been distorted by the malapportionment of both of r State legislative houses, as well as of their U.S. congressional districts, ide being subjected to the discrimination of the county unit system, the erican Civil Liberties Union of Georgia is deeply concerned over recent proals which would nullify the safeguards of fair representation. During its recent 1965 session, the Georgia Legislature passed resolutions itioning Congress for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish principle that one house of a State legislature may be based on "factors other n population." The Georgia House, at the time under a court order to reappor1 itself, also proposed the extreme measure of withdrawing altogether the leral court jurisdiction over cases involving representatives in State legisla

es.

Ve believe it is imperative to point out that passage of these resolutions s carried out by a State house of representatives so malapportioned as to be a ssic example, one which in no way fairly represents the opinions of Georgia's an residents, whose voices have so long been stifled. The Georgia Senate, reapportioned 2 years ago, limited itself to passage the first proposal, but only after amending it to modify the vague phrase ctors other than population," so as to rule out any possibility that race, creed, national origin be considered in determining the base of representation in State legislature. We mention this Senate action because it points directly the most alarming feature of Senator Dirksen's proposed constitutional endment and similar resolutions. In their dissatisfaction over recent Federal urt rulings intended to protect the equality of citizens votes, proponents of se measures seem to be willing to give the States carte blanche in their estabment of the representative base for one legislative chamber. The A.C.L.U. of Georgia believes that the practical effect of such action might ll be not only the introduction of various forms of discrimination in establishapportionment, racial and economic as well as geographic, but also an imate weakening of constitutional guarantees of a republican form of governnt within the States, as well as of the "equal protection" clause. The "onein, one-vote" ruling had given many of Georgia's citizens new hope that their es would at last have their fair value. Its reversal would at the very least mit the perpetuation of a system in which a legislative chamber based on me "factor other than population" could always stalemate or nullify the actions a population-based Senate. In such manner can the individual citizen's share government be destroyed.

For these reasons our organization wishes to go on record as being in strong position to the constitutional amendments proposed by Senators Dirksen, urch, and Javits.

Yours respectfully,

Dr. EDWARD T. LADD,

President.

Attached you will find a statement on this subject taken from the February 655 newsletter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

[Article from the February 1965 newsletter of the American Civil Liberties Unim d Georgia]

THREATENING EVENTS IN THE LEGISLATURE

Overlooked by the press and public as they concentrate on other more dramade happiness at the State capitol was the passage by the Georgia House of Be resentatives of one of the so-called freedom amendments now working way through State legislatures over the country. If it should be passed by Senate, Georgia would be added to the growing list of States (approximately petitioning Congress for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which woul effect withdraw Federal protection from a specific area of political life. One of three amendments proposed several years ago by the legislative c ence of the council of State governments, this particular resolution has been gra impetus by State reaction to the recent apportionment rulings of the Superna Court. In their dissatisfaction over the one-man one-vote decisions, the Sup legislatures are resorting to proposals which could establish a series of dangero precedents by suggesting that jurisdiction over apportionment cases be from Federal courts. Obviously a next step could be to remove Federal jar diction from other areas whenever there might be disagreements with decisi on, for example, civil rights or church-state relations. Such a sequence logically lead to the piecemeal destruction of our traditionally independe judiciary and of the equal protection guarantees of our Constitution.

Not only would this proposed amendment overturn the principles of 14th amendment-it would, along with a somewhat similar resolution just pass by the House and Senate, permit the States carte blanche in determining base of representation in their legislative bodies. This could lead to van forms of discrimination in establishing apportionment and could also actas weaken the constitutional guarantees of a republican form of government. indeed disturbing that in their frustration over the ruling concerning their reapportionment, Georgia's legislators have chosen to support proposals whi could only undermine those processes which are so basic to our constitu: de system.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. ERICSON, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION

The American Ethical Union supports the present constitutional standar interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, with respect to the apportionE/E' State legislatures and views with grave concern efforts to diminish the oDezs one-vote principle by resort to constitutional amendment.

Our opposition to proposals to amend the Constitution in this respect is bas upon the following interest:

The American Ethical Union affirms the principle of democracy as an inte part of any adequate philosophy of humanistic ethics. We believe that way democratic system of society is compatible with the dignity of man and condu to the full development of human potentials. We believe that democracy! rest upon the periodic use of the ballot as a basic right of the governed. I fully operative the democratic process must guarantee the right of an equal to all citizens; any compromise of this principle undermines the full and ext participation of all citizens in their government and tends toward special prit lege and invidious distinctions among electors. We believe that no factors geography or regional interest outweigh the importance of maintaining diminished and uncompromised this basis of our American State govern

The Supreme Court of the United States has acted properly, in our opini recognizing and enforcing this standard of representation in our State leg tures, and we believe that any modification by constitutional amendment w infringe upon the rights of future generations, as well as diminish the chara of democratic government in our own time.

Many have argued that the upper houses of the State legislatures should 14 bound to a population basis, on the analogy of the U.S. Senate. But others la reasoned, and the Court has now held, that the analogy is not valid. The T States is a federation of States, created by a union of the States. But the rate States are not federations of counties. There are no powers under our stitution reserved to the counties, or to other subdivisions within the se States. Rights pertain to the States, or to the people, or to the individual zen. Therefore, we believe that it is bad constitutional doctrine to deprive zens of an equal vote on the argument that county units or other geograp subdivisions have a higher claim.